So why did this soft-spoken professor from the high-ranking Methodist-rooted School of Theology at Claremont, Calif., feel it necessary to risk his hard-earned reputation as a religion scholar to write one of the most incredible -- in all senses of the word -- political books of 2004?

welp, i got my new book today.. its called 'The 9/11 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions' written by David Ray Griffin, you can see more about it here:amazon link

his new book is a really quick read much like his other book i highly suggest entitled 'A New Pearl Harbor'.. in only a few hours I've already made it through about 70+ pages.. its really good so far, and i would suggest it to understand the failures of the 'independent commission'..

today on cspan i watched a conference in DC about the voting issues in the last election.. i am wondering if this subject might come to the forefront now, or if perhaps they will follow up the allegations until it leads to arrests.. either way, im glad to see that there are people out there trying to ensure our vote counts, unfortunately none of the republicans invited bothered to show up, i guess when voter fraud tends to go in your favor its not worth fighting against..

since today was the anniversary of pearl harbor there were alot of links.. so here are a few.. including some which show quite well that pearl harbor wasn't as much of a surprise as it was innevidible.. in fact there are so many mentions of how an attack against us is what we needed (and in some cases wanted) that the idea it was a complete surprise isn't exactly the truth:http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/epearl7e_20041207.htm

the link for today is all about the members of the 'independent' commission.. they werent independent, and the fact that henry kissinger was origionally called to head it should have been a wake up call that this inquiry wouldnt be in the best interest of finding the truth, wherever it might lead.http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_14235.shtml
-----

It was Thomas Pickard, the former acting FBI director from June 2001 to September 2001 and past recipient of another Presidential Rank Award.

So why would Pickard allow his agency to be run in such a horrible manner during this key time frame? In his April 13, 2004 testimony, he told the commission that after the second briefing about the heightened terrorist threat during the summer of 2001, his boss, Attorney General, John Ashcroft, told him that â€he did not want to hear about these threats anymoreâ€.

An investigation is meant to answer questions, the fact that majority of the 400 or so questions proposed by the 9/11 families steering committee were directly ignored, and that it completely ignored WTC7 just goes to show how we can't trust the government (or even the 'free' press) to report to us on the biggest catalyst of our time.

im not sure how new this video is, but it is obviously since i ordered my copy of 'painful deceptions'.. they have hosted a download site which i have listed before, but will list again:http://question911.com/links.php

they have a new adendum which i must say is right on point.. while i dont buy into all of the physical evidence as 100% proof it is definately more proof than provided by the 'independent' investigation.. check out this new adendum, it wraps up the physical proof quite well:Painful Deceptions Update - 911 Commission Report (WMV 25megs)